Watch this:The Oil spill's toxic trade off.

This is an excellent talk by Susan Shaw, a toxicologist who shares some disturbing details into the use of chemical dispersants by BP. Susan has spent 10 years tracking pollutants in sea life. The first part of the video details her work, giving us an insight into her expertise in the field.

BP is only interested in limiting the most visible aspects of the spill, regardless of the long term costs to the environment.

Many ATS members are already familiar with the controversy and debate regarding the levels of chemical dispersants used, and the impact they have on ocean biology, but Susan puts it all together in simple and uncomplicated terms and also focuses on BP's ability to avoid detailing the substances used in the chemicals they are dispersing by hiding behind the trade secrets practice.

The video is only 17 minutes long. You won't enjoy it. But it is worth watching imho. These are the people who will really try to tell us what is happening.

Just thought this was worth a bump considering this thread is up now.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

reply to post by atlasastro


This is an excellent posting. After watching the video a few times and making some notes I wanted to say that this latest video explains so much of what we have not been told and why BP has kept so many secrets from the public.

It appears the regulatory laws are not present to do anything but complain. This alone is good enough reason to ensure regulation that forces the disclosure of those toxins and chemical agents that have long term and or mass impact on the human population and the sea, marine, plant and animal life everywhere.

I offer you and others two critical links that show that BP has been abusing such absence of regulation in other catastrophic ways to humans. Take a look at the two links. Important reference proving BP has engineered synthetic nano replicating organisms.

blacklistednews.com...


Historical evidence that steel eating microbes threatened British ports, UK publication dated 1999 involving BP Oil directly.

www.independent.co.uk...


These two links will cover the subject matter of nano organisms and or synthetic replicating organisms. It is this exact absence of regulation that I suspect forced Obama to sign Executive Order#13546, "Optimizing the Security of Biological Select Agents and Toxins in the United States, signed July 2, 2010 and published July 8, 2010 by Obama. While it may be after the fact, it appears to explain why by law we cant get BP to tell us what they define as "Trade Secrets".

Thanks again, excellent thread.

S & F!
We are not given enough info on the real issues like this.
We all knew the real damage would be to the ecosystem when the leak began.

In my mind the corals are very fragile, while mangroves...not so much, so this choice seems to favor the way of the dodo.

I have to wonder what the "real" reasons for the corexit use are.

I used to love seafood, but I think I would be better off with red meat from here on out.


Thanks for this

reply to post by atlasastro


Thats probably the least self-serving, most informative piece of information on this subject ive seen so far.

Star and flag for that. for sure.

(kinda sounds like it WOULD be better on the beaches than in the ocean)

Is it better on the Beaches than in the Gulf?:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

an informative, fact-filled piece gets three flags, while someone's rant (sorry kat) gets five times as many?

bump

reply to post by MaxBlack


Great post.

Thank you for the links.
I feel sick though, especially at the thought of the potential self replicating organisms that may come with the toxicity of Corexit 9500 or 9527.

Just over a month ago, Venter announced the ‘birth’ of Synthia, the first artificial self-reproducing organism, thereby stimulating further investment in the controversial field and attracting many calls for more regulation and oversight of these new technologies. If we have learnt one thing out of the BP-Halliburton-Transocean disaster it is this: do not trust those who are profiting from the use of a technology with its safety.

blacklistednews.com...

Originally posted by SLaPPiE
S & F!

Cheers.

We are not given enough info on the real issues like this.
We all knew the real damage would be to the ecosystem when the leak began.

You can keep an eye on susan and the research teams that are forming to give independent information about the gulf.
www.meriresearch.org...

I have to wonder what the "real" reasons for the corexit use are.

It is looking more and more like the reasoning behind the use of the dispersants was to limit the visible damage.

Thanks for this

You are welcome.

At a Senate hearing on June 15, 2010, EPA Administrator, Lisa Jackson stated, “In the use of dispersants we
are faced with environmental tradeoffs.” In fact, the use of dispersants does not represent a science-based,
quantifiable “tradeoff” but rather amounts to a large-scale experiment on the Gulf of Mexico ecosystem
that runs contrary to a precautionary approach, an experiment where the costs may ultimately outweigh
the benefits.

Marine Environmental Research Institutes Consensus Statement


[edit on 9/8/10 by atlasastro]

reply to post by justadood

Originally posted by justadood
reply to post by atlasastro

 

Thats probably the least self-serving, most informative piece of information on this subject ive seen so far.

Star and flag for that. for sure.

Thank you, and you are right, Susan just gives it to us straight. It is all about the issue, and that is it.

(kinda sounds like it WOULD be better on the beaches than in the ocean)

Is it better on the Beaches than in the Gulf?:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

That is what the video suggests considering that the oil and dispersant on their own are far less toxic to the environment then mixed together like they are now.
Your thread is on the money.

reply to post by atlasastro


Well, thanks for that.

It AMAZES and disheartens me that a thread like this gets hardly noticed, while ones making untrue proclamations about sea floors collapsing and imminent destruction get a million stars and flags.

Everyone should watch this video.

reply to post by justadood


I understand your point, I guess the video I present is hardly dramatic or "entertaining" from a visual or "doom" perspective, but if people were to actually listen to the information in the video there is actually evidence of large scale death and destruction due to the combinations of corexit and oil.

Susan uses the Exxon Valdez incident to show the consequences of this combination of toxic dispersants and oil effects ecological and biological relationships in a huge way. We already know what will happen. That is the scary thing people should be aware of. This has happened before!

The complexity with which life is webbed is often simplified by our lack of understanding and knowledge. Exxon was a valuable lesson that BP have totally ignored whilst dealing with the Deepwater Horizon spill.

Whilst the sea floor may not be exploding in the video I link, there is a much more sinister threat that is real and present.

reply to post by atlasastro


Clearly you should have used more CAPITAL LETTERS and maybe a bunch of exclamation points. Maybe something about the end of the world.

Thanks again. I have forwarded this to everyone i know.